|
As for the economics of California Indian
gaming, tribes have considerable autonomy in
relation
to the state. A National Indian Gaming
Commission was mandated by IGRA to oversee
tribal gaming,
but it has little binding authority over tribes,
especially at the level of individual casino
operations. And
IGRA specifies that tribal gaming wins cannot be
federally taxed, while tribes do not even have
to
publicly report financial information. We do
know the following. First, the consumer base for
Indian
gaming consists of working and middle cla ss
(and racially mixed) gamblers from nearby cities
and
surrounding areas (i.e., it is a “locals”
market) (Bear Stearns 2000). Second, the compact
negotiated with
the state of California specifies the creation
of a general revenue fund from which non-gaming
tribes will
receive an annual payment of approximately $1
million. And third, despite the rhetoric of
tribal
sovereignty the typical tribe has neither the
resources nor expertise to begin from scratch a
casino, while
outside casino corporations—after initial
opposition to California gaming—have moved to
acquire an
interest in the emerging casinos there. So even
though IGRA sets limits on corporate influence
in Indian
gambling—no non-Indian firm can have a
controlling interest in an Indian casino, while
tribe-firm
agreements can be for a maximum seven year
period (though they are renewable)--the typical
tribal
casino in California is actually a partnership
between the tribe and various outside firms who
assist with
operations, accounting, marketing, etc.
Back to casino
news
|
